Quote:
Originally Posted by glennQNYC
I'm not sure what your definition of "foreseeable future" is, but there is already a handful of UHD sources for movies, and with DirecTV's recently launched UHD satellite already in space, UHD live TV isn't too far behind.
I do agree the visible benefit for UHD resolution is in the 80" plus image range (depending on viewing distance), but UHD is about more than resolution. UHD also adds more color information that can benefit smaller image sizes.
|
Don't believe "the hype" my friend. I am far from a novice when it comes to technology. I am 'plugged in' and monitor trends not only here in the states but all over the world. There are so many things hampering 4k that I won't even try to get into. But this particular article does an excellent job of dissecting the biggest obstacles:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarch...-it-gets-here/
Quote:
|
Even where streaming is concerned – which is where many people see 4K’s natural home – there are significant problems. First, Netflix requires a consistent minimum of 15Mbps of broadband speed for its 4K streams to work, which is well beyond the broadband infrastructure available in many parts of the (even technically developed) world. Second, if millions of us start streaming 4K the sheer quantities of data involved will likely bring many ISPs to their knees.
|
I could actually see Europe being a better test environment because unlike the $$$$ hoarding ISPs here, which severely bottle neck and throttle our content, Europe and even Asia get speeds that are light years faster!
Plus the studios are in no hurry to switch cameras and tools required for 4k.